2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

yep, third outcomer with dots missing from his dominos.
 
These 3 jurors bought Baez hook, line and sinker. They were lazy, imo. They accepted his opening statement and then did not have to think about another thing.
Like the alt juror said about the supposed sexual abuse:
" You cannot ignore what you heard at the beginning. You already heard it and it is always in the back of your mind."

Did they even READ the jury instructions?
 
Where in my post did I say anything at all criticizing the time or outcome of this verdict on Casey Anthony? I don't believe I did.

I merely pointed out what I understood your opinion to be solely as it relates to the Scott Peterson deliberations and how I had a different opinion. I said nothing whatsoever about the Casey Anthony jury or their deliberation time.

Please refrain from misquoting me or putting words in my mouth. TIA

Well this is the forum relating to the Casey Anthony case and the death (and alleged homicide) of her daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony.

The post of mine which you were replying to was regarded the deliberation time of this jury, which others were saying was too short.
 
Putting five men on the jury assured an acquittal.

So, what? We should have a new jury selection criteria? No convicted felons, people not registered vote, or males?

If the prosecution's prospects of securing a conviction rested upon them excluding males from the struck Jury then it ought not to have been brought. The same holds true if they required a vast majority of females to be on the Jury in order to secure a conviction.
 
Alt # 2: "She was always a good mother, why would a mother with no history of abuse just kill her child? I just could not take that leap."

Did he even bother to consider HOW she reacted to her child's DEATH? What kind of 'good mother' goes on a movie date hours after her baby dies? Oh WAIT...that's right, we are not supposed to 'use emotion' in our deliberations. But isn't deciding she is not guilty because she " SEEMS SO SINCERE AND WAS SUCH A GOOD MOTHER' also using emotion?

I WAS NOT UPSET AT THE JURY UNTIL I BEGAN LISTENING TO THEM . UUUGGHHHHHH
 
All these witnesses who told of what a wonderful mother ICA was had not even seen her x4 at the most. Why didn't SA go after that? What do any of these people know about a good mother when ICA is going to be at her best. She is going to show off her genetics.

This jury bought into that.

I wish SA would have emphasied how new these friends were. The jury seems to think they knew ICA forever not just a few weeks...sheesh!
 
The jury mistook emotion for common sense. So they removed their common sense....er...those that had any to begin with.
 
Speaking of this why didn't the State show how upset KC was that she didn't get to go to Puerto Rico with her friends? I think that is one area they messed up with was not showing more dysfunction in the family, that Cindy was always after KC to watch her own child, that she wanted to go with her friends but Cindy wouldn't let her. This jury didn't have the brains to figure out scientific stuff so you needed more usual human drama to show them what was going on.
 
All these witnesses who told of what a wonderful mother ICA was had not even seen her x4 at the most. Why didn't SA go after that? What do any of these people know about a good mother when ICA is going to be at her best. She is going to show off her genes.

The defense doesn't have to prove anything (per jury instructions). If the prosecution had had witnesses to testify that Casey was a terrible mother, you can bet they would have had them right there on the witness stand. Apparently they didn't have any witnesses to do that.
 
"She is a liar, but not a killer. "

Sounds like Baez but it was a juror's words.
 
The defense doesn't have to prove anything (per jury instructions). If the prosecution had had witnesses to testify that Casey was a terrible mother, you can bet they would have had them right there on the witness stand. Apparently they didn't have any witnesses to do that.

I guess the witnesses who proved she was a terrible mother were the many who testified that she showed NO CONCERN at all that her child was missing.

That ,to me, is quite a bit of evidence that she is a TERRIBLE MOTHER. The jury ignored all of that and just chalked it up to 'emotion'--just like Baez asked them to.
 
The defense doesn't have to prove anything (per jury instructions). If the prosecution had had witnesses to testify that Casey was a terrible mother, you can bet they would have had them right there on the witness stand. Apparently they didn't have any witnesses to do that.

The post said SA, not the defense.
 
The defense doesn't have to prove anything (per jury instructions). If the prosecution had had witnesses to testify that Casey was a terrible mother, you can bet they would have had them right there on the witness stand. Apparently they didn't have any witnesses to do that.

Correct.

I am pretty sure that regardless of the truth of the matter, the prosecution did not have witnesses to show a history of neglect or child abuse in order to rebut the Defense's assertion of Casey being a bad mother.

My view, is that is likely that Casey "loved" her daughter, she dotted on her but that she was immature, irresponsible with a lack of foresight and did not understand the responsibility she had as a mother.
 
I guess the witnesses who proved she was a terrible mother were the many who testified that she showed NO CONCERN at all that her child was missing.

That ,to me, is quite a bit of evidence that she is a TERRIBLE MOTHER. The jury ignored all of that and just chalked it up to 'emotion'--just like Baez asked them to.

All of this is post-death. It was common ground at trial that the Victim was not missing at this point but rather dead. The defense assertion is that this was Casey's poor coping and more particularly denial that was observed post mortem.

It still remains that the prosecution had no evidence of Casey being a poor mother, and in particular abusing Caylee prior to 16 June 2008.
 
These 3 jurors bought Baez hook, line and sinker. They were lazy, imo. They accepted his opening statement and then did not have to think about another thing.
Like the alt juror said about the supposed sexual abuse:
" You cannot ignore what you heard at the beginning. You already heard it and it is always in the back of your mind."

Did they even READ the jury instructions?
Nope, they never evena asked for help with them which is almost routine with jurys.

The first juror (alt) that spoke gave it away. All his thoughts were Baez's wordsl. He even changed pronouns. He went from "I" to "Us". Clearly admitting a group think. He knew what the 12 were thinking and he wasn't with them.

They listened to Cheney Mason's version. This was not a very savvy jury.
 
The jury mistook emotion for common sense. So they removed their common sense....er...those that had any to begin with.

I listened to an interview on the radio today (Los Angeles) with a prosecutor who said the CSI effect was in full force with this jury. They've seen crimes solved in 50 minutes on television and have seen strong forensic evidence on tv. So unless the forensic evidence in this case was so clear cut, like on television, they threw it out.
 
I must be losing it. I thought that Clint's GF testified that Caylee was out on the balcony and opening the door at the apartment while her amazing mother was in Tone's bedroom.
 
These jurors aren't very convincing, to me. There has to be a reason that none of them paid any attention to the evidence. Heard JB's opening lies and ignored everything else. There has to be a reason why they go on TV and make themselves sound like morons. Maybe, someday, it will all become clear.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
88
Guests online
855
Total visitors
943

Forum statistics

Threads
625,815
Messages
18,510,755
Members
240,849
Latest member
alonhook
Back
Top